Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Change in s.p.r. climate
11 views
Skip to first unread message
PD
Feb 6, 2012, 4:04:09 PM2/6/12
to
I've been visiting this group for coming up on two decades. Maybe it's
just a lull, but I think the complexion of the group is changing
significantly.
We are seeing reduced numbers of posts by hobbyists who think that
relativity is wrong. Their ranks have been depleted by age, infirmity,
and/or embarrassment.
Without naming names, the remaining cranks, loons, and horribly
misguided seem to relegated to repetitive spluttering and/or
conversations with one partner, usually also a loon. There are, and
there will always be, completely insane babblers who jibber during manic
episodes when they're trying to get inside from the cold streets. But
these aren't really worth attention anyway. Some of the people
remanining who used to attempt thoughtful critiques of relativity have
slowly descended into loss of function, and there has been no great
flood of replacements. There are really only a small handful of folks
who persist in argument for the sake of argument.
It's possible that the reason for this is that physics is not as popular
a profession as it was two decades ago, and so it draws fewer lazy
wannabes (as well as fewer serious new workers).
It could also be that it literally takes a century for a model like
relativity to finally clean out the hold-backs and the grumps, and that
the last bastion of the unconvinced utter their last gasps on public
newsgroups.
Either way, it may be that the group becomes bicameral in the sense that
it is populated with a small number of posters who are serious and
deeply familiar with the subject, against a background of incoherent
white noise.
What happens to the group after that will be interesting.
just a lull, but I think the complexion of the group is changing
significantly.
We are seeing reduced numbers of posts by hobbyists who think that
relativity is wrong. Their ranks have been depleted by age, infirmity,
and/or embarrassment.
Without naming names, the remaining cranks, loons, and horribly
misguided seem to relegated to repetitive spluttering and/or
conversations with one partner, usually also a loon. There are, and
there will always be, completely insane babblers who jibber during manic
episodes when they're trying to get inside from the cold streets. But
these aren't really worth attention anyway. Some of the people
remanining who used to attempt thoughtful critiques of relativity have
slowly descended into loss of function, and there has been no great
flood of replacements. There are really only a small handful of folks
who persist in argument for the sake of argument.
It's possible that the reason for this is that physics is not as popular
a profession as it was two decades ago, and so it draws fewer lazy
wannabes (as well as fewer serious new workers).
It could also be that it literally takes a century for a model like
relativity to finally clean out the hold-backs and the grumps, and that
the last bastion of the unconvinced utter their last gasps on public
newsgroups.
Either way, it may be that the group becomes bicameral in the sense that
it is populated with a small number of posters who are serious and
deeply familiar with the subject, against a background of incoherent
white noise.
What happens to the group after that will be interesting.
Uwe Hayek
Feb 6, 2012, 5:44:15 PM2/6/12
to
On 2/6/2012 10:04 PM, PD wrote:
>
> It could also be that it literally takes a century for a model like
> relativity to finally clean out the hold-backs and the grumps,
QUOTE
>
> It could also be that it literally takes a century for a model like
> relativity to finally clean out the hold-backs and the grumps,
We can now return to the question of what the implications would be for
different theories of quantum gravity if special relativity broke down.
We have seen that such a breakdown can mean two different things,
depending on what the experiments tell us. Special relativity could
break down completely at this scale, which would mean there really is an
absolute distinction between motion and rest. Or special relativity
could be preserved but deepened, as in DSR.
Smolin, Lee (2008-02-28). The Trouble with Physics: The Rise of String
Theory, The Fall of a Science and What Comes Next (p. 236). ePenguin.
Kindle Edition.
UNQUOTE
Only fools do not have doubts. SR-ians suffer from the same problem.
Uwe Hayek.
Roger Onslow
Feb 6, 2012, 5:56:00 PM2/6/12
to
micro...@hotmail.com
Feb 6, 2012, 5:56:22 PM2/6/12
to
You need no doubt in order to question
And of course it must be in a right way.
> Uwe Hayek.
Doubt is what is to be doubted as truth leads to what's better....
Daryl McCullough
Feb 6, 2012, 6:27:58 PM2/6/12
to
It seems to me that there are no new things to discuss in relativity
theory; it's basically been worked out for a hundred years now. This
group can be used to help newbies understand relativity, but it seems
that there are very few newbies asking questions.
theory; it's basically been worked out for a hundred years now. This
group can be used to help newbies understand relativity, but it seems
that there are very few newbies asking questions.
Sue...
Feb 6, 2012, 6:41:08 PM2/6/12
to
<<The key to understanding special relativity is Einstein's
relativity principle, which states that:
All inertial frames are totally equivalent for the
performance of all physical experiments.
In other words, it is impossible to perform a physical experiment
which differentiates in any fundamental sense between different
inertial frames. By definition, Newton's laws of motion take the
same form in all inertial frames. Einstein generalized this result
in his special theory of relativity by asserting that all laws of
physics take the same form in all inertial frames. >>
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html
Sue...
Roger Onslow
Feb 6, 2012, 8:32:04 PM2/6/12
to
On Feb 7, 10:27 am, Daryl McCullough <stevendaryl3...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
If there are some, they may be lurking rather than posting.
wrote:
Roger Onslow
Feb 6, 2012, 8:33:37 PM2/6/12
to
Androcles
Feb 7, 2012, 3:40:28 AM2/7/12
to
"Sue..." <suzyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:66538972-f12b-43a7...@dp5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 6, 6:27 pm, Daryl McCullough <stevendaryl3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It seems to me that there are no new things to discuss in relativity
> theory; it's basically been worked out for a hundred years now. This
> group can be used to help newbies understand relativity, but it seems
> that there are very few newbies asking questions.
Or they have found a better place to ask them.
<<The key to understanding special relativity is Einstein's
relativity principle, which states that:
All inertial frames are totally equivalent for the
performance of all physical experiments.
==========================================
> It seems to me that there are no new things to discuss in relativity
> theory; it's basically been worked out for a hundred years now. This
> group can be used to help newbies understand relativity, but it seems
> that there are very few newbies asking questions.
Or they have found a better place to ask them.
<<The key to understanding special relativity is Einstein's
relativity principle, which states that:
All inertial frames are totally equivalent for the
performance of all physical experiments.
No it doesn't and you cannot cite where it would.
Learn to read, you stupid lying bastard.
dlzc
Feb 7, 2012, 9:19:01 AM2/7/12
to
Dear PD:
On Feb 6, 2:04 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've been visiting this group for coming up
> on two decades. Maybe it's just a lull, but
> I think the complexion of the group is changing
> significantly.
I think it is flooded with "pocket philosophers", which tend to
prevent serious discussion.
> We are seeing reduced numbers of posts by
> hobbyists who think that relativity is wrong.
> Their ranks have been depleted by age, infirmity,
> and/or embarrassment.
... or they are shopping for an unchallenged venue, since they think
they don't want "the fight".
> Without naming names, the remaining cranks,
> loons, and horribly misguided seem to relegated
> to repetitive spluttering and/or conversations
> with one partner, usually also a loon.
... or a sock puppet.
> There are, and there will always be, completely
> insane babblers who jibber during manic episodes
> when they're trying to get inside from the cold
> streets. But these aren't really worth attention
> anyway.
It is if their hands are cold...
> Some of the people remaining who used to attempt
fire, they turn off the automatic sprinkler system, to get the fire to
show itself.
> There are really only a small handful of folks
> who persist in argument for the sake of argument.
>
> It's possible that the reason for this is that
> physics is not as popular a profession as it was
> two decades ago, and so it draws fewer lazy
> wannabes (as well as fewer serious new workers).
Or, they choose another venue. Newsgroups are so "yesterday", such
that at least one University dropped its server (which killed Google
Groups access for a time last year).
> It could also be that it literally takes a
> century for a model like relativity to finally
> clean out the hold-backs and the grumps, and that
> the last bastion of the unconvinced utter their
> last gasps on public newsgroups.
I still wonder about the wisdom of presenting Newton early on in
education, without making it clear that it is "only a good
approximation", and "each journey starts with the first step".
> Either way, it may be that the group becomes
> bicameral in the sense that it is populated with
> a small number of posters who are serious and
> deeply familiar with the subject, against a
> background of incoherent white noise.
>
> What happens to the group after that will be
> interesting.
This has been prophecized for a decade or more. There is enough
garbage on the internet to create confusion, MadSci and other sources
will direct them here after a couple of attempts, and you will get a
new crop.
I do enjoy the "Bell" discussion going on in sci.physics.foundations
(eg. "Eve fools Alice and Bob") right now. I wish Daryl didn't seem
to be fighting it alone... but I surely cannot help.
David A. Smith
On Feb 6, 2:04 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've been visiting this group for coming up
> on two decades. Maybe it's just a lull, but
> I think the complexion of the group is changing
> significantly.
prevent serious discussion.
> We are seeing reduced numbers of posts by
> hobbyists who think that relativity is wrong.
> Their ranks have been depleted by age, infirmity,
> and/or embarrassment.
they don't want "the fight".
> Without naming names, the remaining cranks,
> loons, and horribly misguided seem to relegated
> to repetitive spluttering and/or conversations
> with one partner, usually also a loon.
> There are, and there will always be, completely
> insane babblers who jibber during manic episodes
> when they're trying to get inside from the cold
> streets. But these aren't really worth attention
> anyway.
> Some of the people remaining who used to attempt
> thoughtful critiques of relativity have slowly
> descended into loss of function, and there has
> been no great flood of replacements.
Seems like you are trying to do what firemen do, when they arrive at a
> descended into loss of function, and there has
> been no great flood of replacements.
fire, they turn off the automatic sprinkler system, to get the fire to
show itself.
> There are really only a small handful of folks
> who persist in argument for the sake of argument.
>
> It's possible that the reason for this is that
> physics is not as popular a profession as it was
> two decades ago, and so it draws fewer lazy
> wannabes (as well as fewer serious new workers).
that at least one University dropped its server (which killed Google
Groups access for a time last year).
> It could also be that it literally takes a
> century for a model like relativity to finally
> clean out the hold-backs and the grumps, and that
> the last bastion of the unconvinced utter their
> last gasps on public newsgroups.
education, without making it clear that it is "only a good
approximation", and "each journey starts with the first step".
> Either way, it may be that the group becomes
> bicameral in the sense that it is populated with
> a small number of posters who are serious and
> deeply familiar with the subject, against a
> background of incoherent white noise.
>
> What happens to the group after that will be
> interesting.
garbage on the internet to create confusion, MadSci and other sources
will direct them here after a couple of attempts, and you will get a
new crop.
I do enjoy the "Bell" discussion going on in sci.physics.foundations
(eg. "Eve fools Alice and Bob") right now. I wish Daryl didn't seem
to be fighting it alone... but I surely cannot help.
David A. Smith
Uwe Hayek
Feb 7, 2012, 1:20:54 PM2/7/12
to
QUOTE
We can now return to the question of what the implications would be for
different theories of quantum gravity if special relativity broke down.
We have seen that such a breakdown can mean two different things,
depending on what the experiments tell us. Special relativity could
break down completely at this scale, which would mean there really is an
absolute distinction between motion and rest. Or special relativity
could be preserved but deepened, as in DSR.
Smolin, Lee (2008-02-28). The Trouble with Physics: The Rise of String
Theory, The Fall of a Science and What Comes Next (p. 236). ePenguin.
Kindle Edition.
UNQUOTE
Uwe Hayek.
We can now return to the question of what the implications would be for
different theories of quantum gravity if special relativity broke down.
We have seen that such a breakdown can mean two different things,
depending on what the experiments tell us. Special relativity could
break down completely at this scale, which would mean there really is an
absolute distinction between motion and rest. Or special relativity
could be preserved but deepened, as in DSR.
Smolin, Lee (2008-02-28). The Trouble with Physics: The Rise of String
Theory, The Fall of a Science and What Comes Next (p. 236). ePenguin.
Kindle Edition.
UNQUOTE
0 new messages